[G.R. NOS. 140576-99.

December 13, 2004]

JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR., Petitioner, v. HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division), ALBANO & ASSOCIATES and
the ASSOCIATION OF GENERALS & FLAG OFFICERS,
INC., Respondents.

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:
ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45 of the

Revised Rules of Court, of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan,
dated June 9, 1999 in Criminal Cases Nos. 25122 to 25145, and its
Resolution dated October 22, 1999, denying the motion for
reconsideration thereof.

The Antecedents

The Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation

Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) was established in December 1973
and started its actual operations in 1976. Created under
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 361, as amended, the AFP-RSBS
was designed to establish a separate fund to guarantee
continuous financial support to the AFP military retirement system
as provided for in Republic Act No. 340.1 Under the decree, the
AFP-RSBS was to be funded from three principal sources: (a)
congressional appropriations and compulsory contributions from
members of the AFP; (2) donations, gifts, legacies, bequests and
others to the system; and (3) all earnings of the system which
shall not be subject to any tax whatsoever.2 AFP-RSBS is a
government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC) under Rep.
Act No. 9182, otherwise known as The Special Purpose Vehicle Act
of 2002. It is administered by the Chief of Staff of the AFP through
a Board of Trustees and Management Group.3 Its funds are in the
nature of public funds.4 
ςrνll

On December 18, 1997, Luwalhati R. Antonino, then a member of

the House of Representatives representing the First District of the
Province of South Cotabato, filed a Complaint-Affidavit5 with the
Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. She alleged that
anomalous real estate transactions involving the Magsaysay Park
at General Santos City and questionable payments of transfer
taxes prejudicial to the government had been entertained into
between certain parties. She then requested the Ombudsman to
investigate the petitioner, Retired Brig. Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal, Jr.,
then President of the AFP-RSBS,6 together with twenty-seven (27)
other persons7 for conspiracy in misappropriating AFP-RSBS funds
and in defrauding the government millions of pesos in capital
gains and documentary stamp taxes.8  ςrνll

On January 28, 1999, after the requisite preliminary investigation,

Special Prosecutor Joy C. Rubillar-Arao filed twenty-four (24)
separate Informations with the Sandiganbayan against the
petitioner and several other accused. The filing of the
Informations was duly approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A.
Desierto. The first twelve (12) Informations were for violation of
Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
25122 to 25133.9 All were similarly worded, except for the names
of the other accused, the dates of the commission of the offense,
and the property involved. Representative of the said
Informations is that filed in Criminal Case No. 25122, the
inculpatory portion of which reads: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

That sometime on September 24, 1997, and prior, or subsequent

thereto, in General Santos City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JOSE RAMISCAL, JR.,
a high ranking public official being then the President, and
WILFREDO PABALAN, a low ranking public officer being the
Project Director, both of the AFP-RSBS, while in the performance
of their official duties, taking advantage of their official positions
and committing the offense in relation to their offices, conspiring
together and confederating with NILO FLAVIANO and ALEX
GUAYBAR, both private individuals, did, there and then, willfully,
unlawfully and criminally execute and/or cause the execution of a
falsified Deed of Sale covering Lot-X-4, a real property located at
General Santos City, by making it appear therein that the purchase
price of the said lot is only TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY-
SEVEN THOUSAND (P2,997,000.00) PESOS at P3,000.00 per
square meter, when in truth and in fact, as all the accused very
well knew and, in fact, agreed, that the same was sold
for P10,500.00 per square meter or a total of TEN MILLION FOUR
HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
(P10,489,500.00) PESOS, and use the said falsified Deed of Sale
as basis for payment of capital gains and documentary stamp
taxes relative to the sale of the subject lot in the amount of
only P299,700.00 and P89,910.00, respectively, when the capital
gains, and documentary stamp and other taxes should have
been P524,475.00 and P157,342.50, respectively, thereby short-
changing and causing undue injury to the government through
evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the total amount of
TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVEN
and 50/100 PESOS (P292,207.50), more or less.

CONTRARY TO LAW.10  ςrνll

On the other hand, twelve (12) other separate Informations

indicted the accused for Falsification of Public Documents, defined
and penalized under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code, docketed therein as Criminal Cases Nos. 25134 to
25145.11 Save with respect to the names of the other accused, the
dates of the commission of the felonies, and the property involved
in each case, the Informations were, likewise, similarly worded,
representative of which is that in Criminal Case No. 25134. The
accusatory portion reads: ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

That on or about September 24, 1997, and sometime prior, or

subsequent thereto, in General Santos City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused JOSE RAMISCAL,
JR., a high-ranking public official being then the President, and
WILFREDO PABALAN, a low-ranking public officer being the
Project Director, both of the AFP-RSBS, while in the performance
of their duties, taking advantage of their official positions and
committing the offense in relation to their offices, conspiring and
confederating with each other and with accused NILO FLAVIANO
and JACK GUIWAN, both private individuals, acting with
unfaithfulness and with malicious intent, did, there and then,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally falsify a public document by
executing and/or causing to be executed a Deed of Sale for a 999-
sq. m. property particularly identified as Lot-X-5 located at
General Santos City and stating therein a purchase price of
only P3,000.00 per square meter or a total of TWO MILLION NINE
HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND (P2,997,000.00) PESOS
when in truth and in fact, as all the accused very well knew and, in
fact, agreed, the purchase price of said lot is P10,500.00 per
square meter or a total of TEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-
NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED (P10,489,500.00) PESOS,
thereby perverting the truth.

CONTRARY TO LAW.12  ςrνll

On February 2, 1999, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to

Dismiss the Informations and to Defer the Issuance of Warrant of
Arrest, alleging want of jurisdiction.13 He, likewise, filed an Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to Suspend Proceedings14 on February
16, 1999, because of the pendency of his motion for
reinvestigation with the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of
the Special Prosecutor opposed the said motions.15  ςrνll

Meanwhile, pending resolution of the aforementioned motions, the

law firm of Albano & Associates filed a Notice of Appearance 16 as
private prosecutors in all the aforementioned cases for the
Association of Generals and Flag Officers, Inc. (AGFOI) 17 on March
9, 1999. The notice of appearance was apparently made
conformably to the letter-request of Retired Commodore Ismael
Aparri and Retired Brig. Gen. Pedro Navarro, who are members
thereof.

In a Resolution18 dated April 5, 1999, the Sandiganbayan denied

the earlier motions filed by the petitioner for lack of merit.
Consequently, a warrant of arrest against him was issued. 19 He
posted a cash bail bond for his provisional liberty. 20  ςrνll

On April 6, 1999, the petitioner opposed the appearance of the law

firm of Albano & Associates as private prosecutors, contending
that the charges brought against him were purely public crimes
which did not involve damage or injury to any private party; thus,
no civil liability had arisen.21 He argued that under Section 16 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an offended party may be allowed
to intervene through a special prosecutor only in those cases
where there is civil liability arising from the criminal offense
charged.22 He maintained that if the prosecution were to be
allowed to prove damages, the prosecution would thereby be
proving another crime, in violation of his constitutional right to be
informed of the nature of the charge against him.

In its comment, the law firm contended that its clients,

Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, were members of the
AGFOI and contributors of AFP-RSBS. It alleged that as such
members-contributors, they have been disadvantaged or deprived
of their lawful investments and residual interest at the AFP-RSBS
through the criminal acts of the petitioner and his cohorts. It
posited that its clients, not having waived the civil aspect of the
cases involved, have all the right to intervene pursuant to Section
16, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the law firm averred
that its appearance was in collaboration with the Office of the
Ombudsman, and that their intervention in any event, was subject
to the direction and control of the Office of the Special
Prosecutor.23  ςrνll

Replying to the comment, the petitioner refuted the allegation of

AGFOI that he had civil interest in the criminal cases involved. He
posited that AGFOI was neither a member nor a beneficiary of the
AFP-RSBS. Moreover, considering that it was funded partly by the
national government and individual soldiers by way of salary
deductions, the AGFOI never contributed a single centavo to the
funds of the AFP-RSBS. He further averred that AGFOI, as an
organization, has a distinct personality of its own, apart from the
individual members who compose it.24 Hence, it is of no moment if
some members of AGFOI are or have been members and
beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS.

Meanwhile, on June 6, 1999, the petitioner filed a Motion for

Reinvestigation25 with the Sandiganbayan, mentioning therein his
unresolved motion for reconsideration with the Office of the
Ombudsman. He prayed that the proceeding be suspended and his
arraignment deferred pending the resolution of the
reinvestigation.

The Sandiganbayan granted the motion in its Order dated June 11,
1999. The fallo of the said resolution reads: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

WHEREFORE, the prosecution is given 60 days from today within

which to elevate its evidence and to do whatever is appropriate on
the Motion for Reconsideration dated February 12, 1999 and
supplemental motion thereof dated May 28, 1999 of accused Jose
Ramiscal, Jr. and to inform this Court within the said period as to
its findings and recommendations together with the action
thereon of the Ombudsman.

As prayed for in open court by Pros. Monteroso, this authority

from the Court for the prosecution to evaluate its evidence and
take such appropriate action as regards accused Ramiscals subject
motion shall also include the case regarding all the accused.

SO ORDERED.26  ςrνll

In the meantime, in a Resolution27 dated June 9, 1999, the

Sandiganbayan made short shrift of the petitioners opposition and
denied his plea for the denial of the appearance of the law
firm.28 In justifying its resolution, the Sandiganbayan declared as
follows:ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

Considering that the offended parties are members of the AFP-

RSBS, as represented by the two (2) flag officers, and their right
may be affected by the action of the Court resolving the criminal
and civil aspects of the cases, there appears a strong legal
presumption that their appearance should not be disturbed. After
all, their appearance is subject to the direct supervision and
control of the public prosecutor.29  ςrνll

The petitioner moved for a reconsideration 30 of the

Sandiganbayans Resolution of June 9, 1999, which was
opposed31 by the prosecution. The Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution32 denying the same on October 22, 1999.
The petitioner filed the instant petition under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure, for the nullification of the June 9, 1999 and
October 22, 1999 Resolutions of the graft court, and raised the
following issues:

WHETHER OR NOT, BY NATURE, THE SUBJECT CRIMINAL

INDICTMENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 3(E), REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 3019 AND ARTICLE 172, IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 171, OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY IN
FAVOR OF ANY PRIVATE PARTY.

II

WHETHER OR NOT AGFOI AS REPRESENTED BY ALBANO &

ASSOCIATES ARE PRIVATE INJURED PARTIES ENTITLED TO
INTERVENE AS THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR IN THE SUBJECT
CASES.33 ςrνll

In support of his petition, the petitioner reiterated the same

arguments he put forth before the Sandiganbayan.

The Special Prosecutor, for his part, avers that the remedy
resorted to by the petitioner under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure was improper since the assailed Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan are interlocutory in nature and not final; hence,
the remedy of the petitioner was to file a petition
for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
He also argues that the petition is premature because the
reinvestigation of the cases had not yet been completed. On the
merits of the petition, he posits that the AGFOI is a member of the
AFP-RSBS, and that its rights may be affected by the outcome of
the cases. He further alleged that the appearance of the private
prosecutor was subject to the direct supervision and control of the
public prosecutor.

The petitioner, however, asserts, by way of reply, that the assailed

orders of the Sandiganbayan are final orders; hence, his recourse
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was proper.

The Ruling of the Court

The Assailed Resolutions

of the Sandiganbayan are

Interlocutory in Nature

The word interlocutory  refers to something intervening between

the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some
point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole
controversy. The Court distinguished a final order or resolution
from an interlocutory one in Investments, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals34 as follows:ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,

leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto,
e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the
evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the
rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the
right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the
ground, for instance, of res adjudicata or prescription. Once
rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as deciding the
controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the litigants
is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
except to await the parties next move (which, among others, may
consist of the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, or
the taking of an appeal) and ultimately, of course, to cause the
execution of the judgment once it becomes final or, to use the
established and more distinctive term, final and executory. 35 ςrνll

Conversely, an order that does not finally disposes of the case,

and does not end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties
contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards
each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be
done by the Court, is interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a motion
to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules, or granting a motion for
extension of time to file a pleading, or authorizing amendment
thereof, or granting or denying applications for postponement, or
production or inspection of documents or things, etc. Unlike a final
judgment or order, which is appealable, as above pointed out, an
interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only
as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final
judgment rendered in this case.36  ςrνll

The rule is founded on considerations of orderly procedure, to

forestall useless appeals and avoid undue inconvenience to the
appealing party by having to assail orders as they are
promulgated by the court, when all such orders may be contested
in a single appeal.37 
ςrνll

Under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only final

judgments, orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals or
Sandiganbayan may be assailed therein. The remedy is a mode of
appeal on questions of law only.38  ςrνll

In the present case, the Sandiganbayan merely resolved to allow

the appearance of the law firm of Albano & Associates as private
prosecutors, on its finding that the AGFOI, represented by
Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro who were, likewise,
investors/members of the AFP-RSBS, is the offended party whose
rights may be affected by the prosecution of the criminal and civil
aspects of the cases and the outcome thereof. Furthermore, the
private prosecutor is subject to the direct supervision and control
of the public prosecutor. The Sandiganbayan did not dispose of the
cases on their merits, more specifically, the guilt or innocence of
the petitioner or the civil liabilities attendant to the commission of
the crimes charged. Assuming that the Ombudsman would
maintain the finding of probable cause against the petitioner after
the reinvestigation of the cases, and, thereafter, the
Sandiganbayan would sustain the finding of probable cause
against the petitioner and issue warrants for his arrest, the graft
court would then have to proceed to trial, receive the evidence of
the parties and render judgment on the basis thereof. The
petitioner would then have the following options: (a) to proceed
to trial, and, if convicted, file a Petition for Review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court to this Court; or (b) to file a petition
for certiorari , under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to nullify the
resolutions of the Sandiganbayan on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in issuing
the said resolutions and decision.

Nevertheless, in the interest of substantial justice, we shall treat

the petition as one filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Dismissal of appeal purely on technical grounds is frowned upon
where the policy of the courts is to encourage hearings of appeal
on their merits. The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in
a very rigid technical sense, as they are used only to help secure,
not override substantial justice. If a technical and rigid
enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.
Consequently, in the interest of justice, the instant Petition for
Review may be treated as a special civil action on certiorari  .39 As
we held in Salinas v. NLRC,  40 a petition which should have been
brought under Rule 65 and not under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, is not an inflexible rule. The strict application of procedural
technicalities should not hinder the speedy disposition of the case
on the merits.41 ςrνll

Although there is no allegation in the petition at bar that the

Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of its discretion amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction, nonetheless, the petitioner made
the following averments: that the graft court arbitrarily declared
the AGFOI to be the offended party despite the plain language of
the Informations and the nature of the crimes charged; and that
the graft court blatantly violated basic procedural rules, thereby
eschewing the speedy and orderly trial in the above cases. He,
likewise, averred that the Sandiganbayan had no authority to
allow the entry of a party, through a private prosecutor, which has
no right to the civil liabilities of the accused arising from the
crimes charged, or where the accused has no civil liabilities at all
based on the nature of said crimes. The petitioner also faulted the
Sandiganbayan for rejecting his opposition thereto, in gross
violation of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the
Revised Penal Code. Indeed, such allegations are sufficient to
qualify the petition as one under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As
we held in People v. Court of Appeals  :42  ςrνll

The public respondent acts without jurisdiction if it does not have

the legal power to determine the case; there is excess of
jurisdiction where the respondent, being clothed with the power
to determine the case, oversteps its authority as determined by
law. There is grave abuse of discretion where the public
respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic
manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.43 
ςrνll

Besides, unless we resolve the present petition on its merits,

other parties, like the private respondents herein, may, likewise,
enter their appearance as offended parties and participate in
criminal proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.

The Appearance of

the Law Firm Albano

& Associates

The respondent law firm entered its appearance as private

prosecutor for AGFOI, purportedly upon the request of
Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, quoted infra: ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

Atty. Antonio Albano

Practicing Lawyer

Albano-Irao Law Offices

Dear Atty. Albano: ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

We represent a number of Retired Generals and other Star Rank

Officers who rightfully claim to have been disadvantaged or
deprived of our lawful investments and residual interest at the
Retirement Separation Benefit System, AFP because of alleged
plunder of the Systems Funds, Large Scale Estafa and Falsification
of Public Documents.

We are requesting that you appear in our behalf as private

prosecutor of our case.

Thank you very much.

(Sgd.) COMMO. ISMAEL D. APARRI (RET)

(Sgd.) BGEN. PEDRO I. NAVARRO (RET) 44  ςrνll

As gleaned from the letter-request, the legal services of the

respondent law firm were not engaged by the AGFOI itself; it was
Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro who did so, for and in
behalf of the other retired generals and star rank officers claiming
to have residual interests in or to be investors of the AFP-RSBS,
the vendee of the lots subject of the Informations against the
petitioner. Moreover, there is no showing in the records that the
Board of Directors of the AGFOI, authorized them to engage the
services of the respondent law firm to represent it as private
prosecutor in the above cases. Neither is there any resolution on
record issued by the Board of Directors of the AGFOI authorizing
Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro to secure the services
of the respondent law firm to represent it as the private
prosecutor in said cases. If at all, the respondent law firm is the
counsel of Aparri and Navarro only.

The AGFOI and/or Commodore

Aparri and/or Brig. Gen.
Navarro Are Not the Offended
Parties in the Informations filed
Before the Sandiganbayan

The petitioner avers that the crimes charged are public offenses
and, by their very nature, do not give rise to criminal liabilities in
favor of any private party. He asserts that, as gleaned from the
Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 25122 to 25133 for violation
of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, the offended party is the
government because based on the deeds of sale executed in favor
of the AFP-RSBS, as vendee, it was deprived of capital gains and
the documentary stamp taxes. He contends that the Informations
in Criminal Cases Nos. 25134 to 25145, for falsification of public
document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code, do not contain any allegation that the AGFOI or any private
party sustained any damage caused by the said falsifications. The
petitioner further argues that absent any civil liability arising from
the crimes charged in favor of AGFOI, the latter cannot be
considered the offended party entitled to participate in the
proceedings before the Sandiganbayan. According to the
petitioner, this view conforms to Section 16, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads: ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

SEC. 16. Intervention of the offended party in criminal action.

Where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in
the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.

Thepetitionerposits that the AGFOI is not a member, beneficiary or

contributor of the AFP-RSBS, and that even if it were so, it would
not sustain a direct and material damage by an adverse outcome
of the cases. Allowing the AGFOI to intervene would open the
floodgates to any person similarly situated to intervene in the
proceedings and, thus, frustrate the speedy, efficient and
inexpensive disposition of the cases.

In his Comment, the Special Prosecutor avers that the AGFOI is

entitled to intervene in the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan
because it is a member of the AFP-RSBS, whose rights may be
affected by the outcome of the cases.

The AGFOI and the respondent law firm contend that the latter
has a right to intervene, considering that such intervention would
enable the members of AGFOI to assert their rights to information
and access to the official records, documents, and papers, a right
granted by no less than paragraph 7, Article IV of the 1987
Constitution. Furthermore, the funds of the AFP-RSBS are
impressed with public character because the government provided
for its initial funds, augmented from time to time by the salary
contributions of the incumbent AFP soldiers and officers.

We agree with the contention of the petitioner that the AGFOI,

and even Commodore Aparri and Brig. Gen. Navarro, are not the
offended parties envisaged in Section 16, Rule 110, in relation to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Under Section 5, Rule 11045 of the Rules, all criminal actions

covered by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under
the direct supervision and control of the public prosecutor. Thus,
even if the felonies or delictual acts of the accused result in
damage or injury to another, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability based on the said criminal acts is impliedly
instituted46 and the offended party has not waived the civil action,
reserved the right to institute it separately or instituted the civil
action prior to the criminal action, the prosecution of the action
inclusive of the civil action remains under the control and
supervision of the public prosecutor.47 The prosecution of offenses
is a public function.48 Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the offended party may intervene in the
criminal action personally or by counsel, who will act as private
prosecutor for the protection of his interests and in the interest of
the speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. A separate
action for the purpose would only prove to be costly, burdensome
and time-consuming for both parties and further delay the final
disposition of the case. The multiplicity of suits must be
avoided.49 With the implied institution of the civil action in the
criminal action, the two actions are merged into one composite
proceeding, with the criminal action predominating the civil. The
prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in
order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar
offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him
or, in general, to maintain social order.

On the other hand, the sole purpose of the civil action is for the
resolution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended
party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the
delictual or felonious act of the accused.50 Under Article 104 of the
Revised Penal Code, the following are the civil liabilities of the
accused: ςηαñrοblεš  νιr†υαl  lαω  lιbrαrÿ

ART. 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability

established in Articles 100, 101, 102 and 103 of this Code
includes: ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

1. Restitution; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

2. Reparation of the damage caused; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

3. Indemnification for consequential damages.

Thus, when the offended party, through counsel, has asserted his
right to intervene in the proceedings, it is error to consider his
appearance merely as a matter of tolerance.51  ςrνll

The offended party may be the State or any of its

instrumentalities, including local governments or government-
owned or controlled corporations, such as the AFP-RSBS, which,
under substantive laws, are entitled to restitution of their
properties or funds, reparation, or indemnification. For instance,
in malversation of public funds or property under Article 217 52 of
the Revised Penal Code, frauds under Article 213 53 of the Revised
Penal Code, and violations of the Forestry Code of the Philippines,
P.D. No. 705, as amended, to mention a few, the government is
the offended party entitled to the civil liabilities of the accused.
For violations of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, 54 any party,
including the government, may be the offended party if such party
sustains undue injury caused by the delictual acts of the accused.
In such cases, the government is to be represented by the public
prosecutor for the recovery of the civil liability of the accused.

Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure, the offended party may also be a private individual
whose person, right, house, liberty or property
was actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or
omission of the accused,55 or that corporate entity which is
damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained of. Such
party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial interest in
the subject matter of the action as will entitle him to recourse
under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient
or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will
be protected by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest
must not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential.
The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on a
desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and
unrelated party.56 ςrνll

Hence, even if the members of AGFOI may also be members or

beneficiaries of the AFP-RSBS, the respondent AGFOI does not
have a legal right to intervene in the criminal cases merely and
solely to enforce and/or protect the constitutional right of such
members to have access to the records of AFP-RSBS. Neither are
such members entitled to intervene therein simply because the
funds of the AFP-RSBS are public or government funds. It must be
stressed that any interest of the members of the AFP-RSBS over
its funds or property is merely inchoate and incidental. Such funds
belong to the AFP-RSBS which has a juridical personality separate
and independent of its members/beneficiaries.

As gleaned from the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 25122 to

25133 for violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, the
offended party is the government, which was allegedly deprived
by the petitioner and the other accused of the capital gains and
documentary stamp taxes, based on the actual and correct
purchase price of the property stated therein in favor of the AFP-
RSBS. The AGFOI was not involved whatsoever in the sales
subject of the crimes charged; neither was it prejudiced by the
said transactions, nor is it entitled to the civil liability of the
petitioner for said cases. Thus, it is not the offended party in the
said cases.

We agree with the petitioner that the AGFOI is not even the
offended party in Criminal Cases Nos. 25134 to 25145 for
falsification of public documents under paragraph 4, Sec. 1, Article
171, of the Revised Penal Code. It bears stressing that in the
felony of falsification of public document, the existence of any
prejudice caused to third person or the intent to cause damage, at
the very least, becomes immaterial. The controlling consideration
is the public character of a document and the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of truth therein solemnly
proclaimed. The offender does not, in any way, have civil liability
to a third person.57  ςrνll

However, if, in a deed of sale, the real property covered thereby is

underpriced by a public officer and his co-conspirators to conceal
the correct amount of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes
due on the sale causing undue injury to the government, the
offenders thereby commit two crimes (a) falsification of public
document defined in paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code; and (b) violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019, a
special penal law. The offender incurs civil liability to the
government as the offended party for violation of Section 3(e) of
Rep. Act No. 3019, but not for falsification of public document
under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, if, under the deed of sale, the AFP-RSBS was
made liable for the payment of the capital gains and documentary
stamp taxes and, thereafter, gave the correct amount thereof to
the petitioner to be paid to the government, and the petitioner and
his co-accused pocketed the difference between the correct
amount of taxes and the amount entrusted for payment, then the
AFP-RSBS may be considered the offended party entitled to
intervene in the above criminal cases, through the Government
Corporate Counsel.58 ςrνll

In fine, the AGFOI is not the offended party entitled to intervene

in said cases.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition isGRANTED. The

assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. No costs.

SO ORDERED.